rachmiel wrote:In fact I would, do think the latter. Who am "I?" A fictional character created by my brain in cahoots with my sensory organs and nervous system.

So, you assert that the brain creates its owner....

I'm saying there IS no owner. There is just: brain/nervous system ... doing its thing.

Okay then, you assert that the brain creates its illusion of an owner.Whatever. Illusion or not, the point is,you are saying that all of this otherwise non-cognitive stuff spontaneously bears cognitive witness to its own existence....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

rachmiel wrote:Advaitans argue (passionately, unyieldingly!) that brahman cannot be refuted. Christians have thousands of pages of scripture explaining why their God/Truth is the only true God/Truth. Ditto for every religion and most (all?) scientific disciplines. Why should I -- anyone? -- believe any of these assertions? (I don't.) I see them all as metaphors, stories. Some no doubt come closer to modelling reality than others, but stories are just ... stories. Mind, awareness, consciousness, enlightenment ... compelling metaphors, not the real thing. But I digress ...

Very true. Buddhism has volumes of arguments to prove how the Buddhadharma is true and the others are wrong. If you go that way, it is called the path of the pandita. Those who already possess some faith but lack intellectual interest can go on the path of the yogi, following the instructions of a teacher. However, Buddhism is not that black and white. Everybody studies some scriptures and everybody does some meditation. Study and meditation has to strengthen and confirm each other. It's like the two ways of understanding something: by inference and by direct perception. So, the teachers say that it is very important to gain personal verification of the Dharma through one's own experience. It means that you can put the teachings to the test in your own life. And the proof is found in the decreasing of suffering and the increasing of wholesome qualities. That is, there is a clear benefit one can derive from the teachings of the Buddha on every level. And that benefit, that blessing is what makes Buddhism a worthwhile endeavour.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

In the book Vivid Awareness, it is asserted that one cannot know the location of one's mind.

So we appear to have hit an impasse.

We cannot know the location of one's mind, because one's mind is not something that resides in any fixed location.We use terminology that describes mind as a static thing,rather than as a series of temporary events. Thus, the mind cannot be said to reside "in" the brain,although we can demonstrate scientifically that within the brain there occurs neurological events combining various chemical elements and electricity, and that these events are experienced as thoughts/feelings and thus asthe arising of mind,but only when occurring within the context of, or ground of, awareness.

With the experiences thus arises the sensation of one who is having the experience, which is the illusion of a permanent or intrinsically real self.But again, the actual molecular structures in the brain do not experience this "self" because they have no means of doing so. Molecules do not have eyes or ears or any means of interpreting light and temperature, vibration, etc. cognitively.

When molecular events occur where there is no ground of awareness, thoughts do not arise there.If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it makes no sound.It certainly does produce all of the needed components for sound (it causes air molecules to vibrate) and that is why, upon contact with awareness, those compnents are experienced as sound. Those components can even be recorded and recreated later (played back) but no sound actually occurs until those components arise within the field of awareness.

Likewise, for all of the busy elecetro-chemical-neurological activity that takes place in the brain,none of it manifests as cognition until it is subject to awareness,and if there is no cognition, then logically,the physical components of the brain alone do not produce that awareness....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

rachmiel wrote: So my speculation is that beliefs arise from the brain/nervous system. The "magic" is in the functioning of the brain/nervous system, not in any force (e.g. Consciousness, with a capital C) external to that. Just my take, born of the goings on in my brain/nervous system.

Who is arguing your point,you, or your brain?

The point is not that a separate consciousness exists outside of the brain.Nobody is saying that....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:So, you assert that the brain creates its owner....

I'm saying there IS no owner. There is just: brain/nervous system ... doing its thing.

Okay then, you assert that the brain creates its illusion of an owner.Whatever. Illusion or not, the point is,you are saying that all of this otherwise non-cognitive stuff spontaneously bears cognitive witness to its own existence....

Yes! It's miraculous, isn't it? So is the fact that a buncha particle-waves can come together to create a cherry tree in full flower. Who/what tells each particle to go where it goes, stay where it stays?

rachmiel wrote:Advaitans argue (passionately, unyieldingly!) that brahman cannot be refuted. Christians have thousands of pages of scripture explaining why their God/Truth is the only true God/Truth. Ditto for every religion and most (all?) scientific disciplines. Why should I -- anyone? -- believe any of these assertions? (I don't.) I see them all as metaphors, stories. Some no doubt come closer to modelling reality than others, but stories are just ... stories. Mind, awareness, consciousness, enlightenment ... compelling metaphors, not the real thing. But I digress ...

Very true. Buddhism has volumes of arguments to prove how the Buddhadharma is true and the others are wrong. If you go that way, it is called the path of the pandita. Those who already possess some faith but lack intellectual interest can go on the path of the yogi, following the instructions of a teacher. However, Buddhism is not that black and white. Everybody studies some scriptures and everybody does some meditation. Study and meditation has to strengthen and confirm each other. It's like the two ways of understanding something: by inference and by direct perception. So, the teachers say that it is very important to gain personal verification of the Dharma through one's own experience. It means that you can put the teachings to the test in your own life. And the proof is found in the decreasing of suffering and the increasing of wholesome qualities. That is, there is a clear benefit one can derive from the teachings of the Buddha on every level. And that benefit, that blessing is what makes Buddhism a worthwhile endeavour.

Thanks, Astus.

I'm much more of a theorist than a practitioner. But I'm challenging that, am close to establishing a daily practice, on the cushion (actually, cross-legged on a straight-back armchair). It's not easy! Pondering comes very naturally for me, direct experience (meditation) not.

rachmiel wrote: So my speculation is that beliefs arise from the brain/nervous system. The "magic" is in the functioning of the brain/nervous system, not in any force (e.g. Consciousness, with a capital C) external to that. Just my take, born of the goings on in my brain/nervous system.

Who is arguing your point,you, or your brain?

Maybe there is no concrete doer. Who/what does a thunderstorm?

The point is not that a separate consciousness exists outside of the brain.Nobody is saying that.

I think there's some nontrivial semantic misunderstanding going on between me and the other posters in this thread.

Could someone please offer succinct definitions of these terms as used in Buddhism:

PadmaVonSamba wrote:We cannot know the location of one's mind, because one's mind is not something that resides in any fixed location.We use terminology that describes mind as a static thing,rather than as a series of temporary events. Thus, the mind cannot be said to reside "in" the brain,although we can demonstrate scientifically that within the brain there occurs neurological events combining various chemical elements and electricity, and that these events are experienced as thoughts/feelings and thus asthe arising of mind,but only when occurring within the context of, or ground of, awareness.

With the experiences thus arises the sensation of one who is having the experience, which is the illusion of a permanent or intrinsically real self.But again, the actual molecular structures in the brain do not experience this "self" because they have no means of doing so. Molecules do not have eyes or ears or any means of interpreting light and temperature, vibration, etc. cognitively.

When molecular events occur where there is no ground of awareness, thoughts do not arise there.If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it makes no sound.It certainly does produce all of the needed components for sound (it causes air molecules to vibrate) and that is why, upon contact with awareness, those compnents are experienced as sound. Those components can even be recorded and recreated later (played back) but no sound actually occurs until those components arise within the field of awareness.

Likewise, for all of the busy elecetro-chemical-neurological activity that takes place in the brain,none of it manifests as cognition until it is subject to awareness,and if there is no cognition, then logically,the physical components of the brain alone do not produce that awareness....

Mind arises in response to perception of something, physical or conceptual. The mind might not 'reside' in the brain, but it certainty gives rise to it. Without a physical structure to retain memory, how could the mind arise at all?

For a mind to exist, it requires perception of an object, (sense organs, or memories, ideas, concepts). There may be awareness without a brain, but without a brain there is no mind to apprehend that awareness. It is quite possible that all matter/energy is aware inherently.

We can never prove it though, because it requires a living brain/mind to even consider it.

"When molecular events occur where there is no ground of awareness, thoughts do not arise there.If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it makes no sound.It certainly does produce all of the needed components for sound (it causes air molecules to vibrate)and that is why, upon contact with awareness, those compnents are experienced as sound.Those components can even be recorded and recreated later (played back)but no sound actually occurs until those components arise within the field of awareness."

At the molecular level, there is no difference between a person and a tree, except for the structures which the molecules make up. So, what form do these molecules need to be in to allow a 'ground of awareness'?If it has nothing to do with the form of the molecules, then why should a field of awareness exist in relation to a person rather than a tree? or is it just that the brain/mind allows for the recognition of an event, via memory recall?

"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." - Albert Einstein

rachmiel wrote:I'm much more of a theorist than a practitioner. But I'm challenging that, am close to establishing a daily practice, on the cushion (actually, cross-legged on a straight-back armchair). It's not easy! Pondering comes very naturally for me, direct experience (meditation) not.

If you allow me, I'd like to recommend that instead of jumping for non-conceptual methods (i.e. Dzogchen), start with a more systematic approach. I say that because vipashyana as analytical meditation can very effectively remove conceptual attachments.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Jesse wrote: Mind arises in response to perception of something, physical or conceptual. [ /quote]The arising of mind IS the response.

Jesse wrote:For a mind to exist, it requires perception of an object, (sense organs, or memories, ideas, concepts). There may be awareness without a brain, but without a brain there is no mind to apprehend that awareness.

Yeah, I am not disputing that (go back a bit to what I posted earlier)....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

rachmiel wrote:I'm much more of a theorist than a practitioner. But I'm challenging that, am close to establishing a daily practice, on the cushion (actually, cross-legged on a straight-back armchair). It's not easy! Pondering comes very naturally for me, direct experience (meditation) not.

If you allow me, I'd like to recommend that instead of jumping for non-conceptual methods (i.e. Dzogchen), start with a more systematic approach. I say that because vipashyana as analytical meditation can very effectively remove conceptual attachments.

The guy (longtime Buddhist practitioner, now a Lama Surya Das regular) who recommended I try vivid awareness did so because he felt it would be an effective (radical!) antidote to my tendency toward endless quasi-philosophizing. And when I've "done" vivid awareness, it has in fact pretty much stopped obsessive in-the-head searching for me. That is ... until I read the book more carefully and ran into this location of mind thing, which (obviously) has set the little gray cells back in motion.

Which would you recommend: vipassana (which I did regularly a few years back) or kusulu-type "resting in being" meditation? I'm more keen on the latter, because it's new to me. But I'm still not sure, after all this time, what exactly "resting in being" means. Maybe I should mix it up, vipassana followed by kusulu 10-20 minutes each kind of thing?

You should also aspire to getting a proper introduction from a guru. The kusulu meditation is not a technique, but is more of sustaining the recognition of what was pointed out to you by the master. I am not saying that you can't derive benefit from what you are doing, but this type of thing usually depends on a proper introduction. When you have that recognition, the questions that you are asking yourself become redundant, because you recognize that to be mind, as opposed to the nature of mind.

Analytical meditation can be very helpful as well. It may also help you to study some madhyamaka, although this is not the best approach for everyone. There are many analytical meditations that you can do, such as imagining all of your body parts (parts that you consider "me" or "mine") slowly disappearing. In the end you are left with nothing, and then you look at that which is looking. All of the analytical meditations always end with resting, so you have this process of looking (or asking) and then resting. Something like that.

rachmiel wrote:Please help me understand the Buddhist takes on these key terms. I'm hoping they can be "defined" in just a few words, i.e. the essence sans ornamentation ... ? mind: ... consciousness: ... awareness: ...

emptiness.

(okay, I know that wasn't what you wanted!)

I don't know that these can be defined straight up as they are terms that generally reflect the context in which they are being used.

My understanding is that, contrary to the way mind is usually regarded, it is not a "thing' that creates thoughts. It's not like mind is the bowl and thoughts are little things in the bowl. "Mind" describes the activity of perceiving, thinking, of conceptualizing, etc. which is both, as you say, raw brain activity, and also the awareness of that brain activity.

Consciousness is a somewhat vague term and can really only have a specific meaning in the context of a specific situation. But in the context of these three terms, it would refer to awareness of an object. To be consciousofsomething. in other words, it is conditional. When talking about the brain, I prefer the term cognition to consciousness. It avoids the situation of, say, getting a blow to the head and losing consciousness.

Awareness in common usage refers to brain activity, as you say. "I am aware of the computer because my brain and sensory organs make that awareness happen". Well, the brain is really only a juicy switchboard inside the skull. But who experiences those switches, that chemistry, those amino acids as fear, as joy, as mathematics, as language? The glitch here is the assertion that the components of the brain alone collectively create a cognitive personality which itself does not directly experience these components, meaning that these brain components don't even know they exist.

But there is the notion of awareness as a precondition, much the way that three dimensional space is a precondition for our experience. Space is a given. there is space between you and me, between two trees. Pretty much everything happens in the context of 3D space. Likewise, Awareness can also be regarded as what everything happens in. But there is probably a better word for this. Bankei (1622-1693) called it, "marvelously illuminating unborn mind".

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

rachmiel wrote:Please help me understand the Buddhist takes on these key terms. I'm hoping they can be "defined" in just a few words, i.e. the essence sans ornamentation ... ?

mind: ...

consciousness: ...

awareness: ...

'Mind' usually refers to the experiencing continuum of a sentient being in its entirety. Which means deluded dualistic perception governed by ignorance [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa]. Subjectivity which naturally implies objectivity and that dichotomy as a whole. A sentient being is the opposite of a Buddha, Buddhas are not deluded. Mind would be the sum of the consciousnesses. The term 'mind' may also (sometimes) be attributed solely to the stream of thought and memory, like it is traditionally in the west, though more often than not mind will simply signify the afflicted condition of a sentient being.

'Consciousness' is a term attributed to the different sensory modalities and their respective streams of experience. The collection of consciousnesses are set up in groups of 6 or 8 depending on the tradition, including the 5 traditional senses plus memory, emotional imprints etc. for the additional consciousnesses. Consciousness is also deluded and arises as a result of ignorance. The senses; sensory organs, sensory fields are likewise products of ignorance. A Buddha is divested of these faculties and recognizes them to be empty (meaning lacking inherent existence, dependently originated and/or free from extremes).

'Awareness' would be synonymous with consciousness, though it can perhaps be attributed to a subtle dualistic reference point as well. There has been a prominent trend to translate the term 'rig pa' [skt. vidyā] as 'awareness', and so you may often see rigpa translated as 'awareness' in dzogchen and mahamudra texts. Unfortunately this trend is misrepresentative of rigpa, which is more accurately a discerning knowledge of primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes]. 'Awareness' suggests (i) awareness of something, and (ii) also suggests a neutral indeterminate cognizance, both are misrepresentative of rigpa (which is best left untranslated).

Buddhism is more concerned with emptiness. Mind, consciousness and awareness are all empty, there is nothing which isn't empty.

Last edited by asunthatneversets on Fri May 24, 2013 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CrawfordHollow wrote:There are many analytical meditations that you can do, such as imagining all of your body parts (parts that you consider "me" or "mine") slowly disappearing. In the end you are left with nothing, and then you look at that which is looking.

I was lead through this meditation at a sangha meeting. It was powerful, pivotal for me.

But really, getting a direct introduction is vital.

Thanks for the advice. Alas, I think it's not in the cards, at least not now. I'm just going to have to fumble and grope my way around ... which is typically my favorite way of exploring, by not-knowing. Fall down six times, get up seven.

I think this whole issue of mind /brain is really important to talk about.1. There are gaps in understanding on both sides (meaning modern science and ancient buddhist analytics).2. There is terminology which is vague, has multiple and sometimes conflicting meanings.3. There are concepts that do not translate well.4. there is a lot of area for discussion.

Thanks for bringing it up in the first place.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Buddhism seems to translate well to new cultures and eras. I would hope that Buddhism --and Buddhists! -- would grow to meet our deepening scientific understanding of how the brain, nervous system, senses, etc. work. I'm learning a lot from this book:

In this book-length conversation, French Buddhist monk Ricard and Vietnamese-born astrophysicist Trinh explore how Buddhism and modern science address life's big questions. Among the matters they touch on, sometimes fleetingly and sometimes in depth, are the illusory nature of phenomena, the guiding intelligence of nature, and the search for the mechanisms that drive planets and humans alike. Both authors, each conversant in the other's medium, argue against reductionist views of nature.

And for a large compendium of empirical findings challenging the physicalist view of mind

Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas